Jump to content

Bakker's the Great Ordeal excerpts III: Barthes to Balzac(spoilers)


Kalnestk Oblast

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, themerchant said:

There's no real life comparison or discipline that deals with these sort of things, interstellar travel, high velocity crashes in the context of spaceships.

Basically i have no clue :)

Fixed that for yah.

Comparing one high velocity planetary impact with another is perfectly applicable. Mass is mass, velocity is velocity, the same physics and effects more or less apply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Comparing one high velocity planetary impact with another is perfectly applicable. Mass is mass, velocity is velocity, the same physics and effects more or less apply. 

Would have thought that about genetics too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Would have thought that about genetics too. 

Hence my smaller issue with the Whale Mothers, the other being, just... ugh. 

Anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Fixed that for yah.

Comparing one high velocity planetary impact with another is perfectly applicable. Mass is mass, velocity is velocity, the same physics and effects more or less apply. 

In general yes, however not in specific. We don't know what forces are at play when a spaceship crashes. You need a lot more than knowing the momentum to work it out. If it utilities quantum physics instead of general relativity then mass isn't mass and velocity isn't velocity. It's postulated today that different universes have different rules, multiverse, string theory, 11 dimensions and all that good untestable shit.

In General everything could be worked out from first principles including interstellar travel, it's a deterministic universe it seems, no one would be able to do it in practice though. The same way i can't work out the physics of the spaceship crashing. Nor is there a real world equivalent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, themerchant said:

In general yes, however not in specific. We don't know what forces are at play when a spaceship crashes. You need a lot more than knowing the momentum to work it out. If it utilities quantum physics instead of general relativity then mass isn't mass and velocity isn't velocity. It's postulated today that different universes have different rules, multiverse, string theory, 11 dimensions and all that good untestable shit.

In General everything could be worked out from first principles including interstellar travel, it's a deterministic universe it seems, no one would be able to do it in practice though. The same way i can't work out the physics of the spaceship crashing. Nor is there a real world equivalent.

 

 

Wot. 

Working backward from energy [a 100 km crater] aka, the effect, is good enough to have an approximation of the two [mass and velocity] Things quantum, don't really factor in on a scale that large, at least in any deterministic way, which a crater of that size most definitely would be [meaning, deterministic]  

Sorry dude, but you're talking serious pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Wot. 

Working backward from energy [a 100 km crater] aka, the effect, is good enough to have an approximation of the two [mass and velocity] Things quantum, don't really factor in on a scale that large, at least in any deterministic way, which a crater of that size most definitely would be [meaning, deterministic]  

Sorry dude, but you're talking serious pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo there.

No i'm not, they have a spaceship that can clearly travel distances faster than light. So how does that fit into your nice wee equation? It doesn't.So we have an incomplete understanding of physics in the context of a spaceship, they "break" one of our physical laws (supremacy of light in a foot race) what's to say others aren't broken. We have no way of knowing, which is my point.

Energy isn't measured in Crater Diameter lol. You'd also have to assume a pure 100% elastic collision, which don't happen, zero lost kinetic energy perfectly transferred on impact. Unless you know the physics behind working out the energy dissipation accurately. I certainly don't.

 

Although to be fair Feyman did say

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."

so perhaps crater diameter isn't as daft as it sounds.  I said if the spaceship utilised quantum physics mass and velocity would not be as described. I didn't make a claim about quantum physics being relevant in large scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, themerchant said:

No i'm not, they have a spaceship that can clearly travel distances faster than light. So how does that fit into your nice wee equation? It doesn't.So we have an incomplete understanding of physics in the context of a spaceship, they "break" one of our physical laws (supremacy of light in a foot race) what's to say others aren't broken. We have no way of knowing, which is my point.

Your point is moot though, because your conflating FTL and Quantum effects with relativistic phenomena. If the Ark was actually travelling at C or FTL even, it wouldn't really get anywhere due increased mass. It appears to travel at FTL because it's circumventing actual space by travelling through it, via worm hole, hyperdrive, whatever. I like that you're trying to incorporate all this stuff, but it doesn't work the way you propose. I mean, it almost sounds like you're trying to bust out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle on me, which doesn't apply on a macroscopic scale. At all.

 

52 minutes ago, themerchant said:

Energy isn't measured in Crater Diameter lol. You'd also have to assume a pure 100% elastic collision, which don't happen, zero lost kinetic energy perfectly transferred on impact. Unless you know the physics behind working out the energy dissipation accurately. I certainly don't.

You're correct, in a sense. But assuming that in Bakkerworld steel is steel, granite is granite, dirt is dirt... as an application of force, the specifics of the crater depict the energy invested, equatable with a real world asteroid impact of equal size. To suggest otherwise is grasping at straws, I don't even know what to say further than this.

 

52 minutes ago, themerchant said:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas."

Feyman is one of the great minds of the last century, and what he says is not incorrect. How you think the words of a theoretical physicist speaking directly about quantum theory relates to [edit: relativistic] physics however, specifically in this case, is beyond me. And honestly, I'm not sure I want to know how your mind is mixing all this up hahaha

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't get too worked up on that stuff, as there's some critical chunks of data you're missing (which TGO goes into in more detail).

 

On a related note, what do people reckon on the size of the Ark?

According to the glossary, the Ark is three thousand cubits in length, five hundred in width, and three hundred in depth.

The largest ancient measurement is the Egyptian long cubit, which at the upper end works out at 529 mm (20.8 in). So on that basis the Ark is 1 mile/1586 metres long (well, 0.98611 miles), 0.164 miles/263 metres wide and 0.098 miles/157.7 metres deep.

I wonder if the Earwa cubit is different to any of ours, as that's not that big. It's quite long, but not very wide or deep at all, and quite piddly compared to spacecraft in SF settings. It's slightly shorter than a Star Destroyer but much, much narrower. It'd be an impressive sight - twice the height of the Burj Khalifa, so if the Horns make up 50% of it they'd absolutely tower above the ground - but it does seem to slightly go against the descriptions of the "cavernous" interior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Werthead said:

On a related note, what do people reckon on the size of the Ark?

According to the glossary, the Ark is three thousand cubits in length, five hundred in width, and three hundred in depth.

The largest ancient measurement is the Egyptian long cubit, which at the upper end works out at 529 mm (20.8 in). So on that basis the Ark is 1 mile/1586 metres long (well, 0.98611 miles), 0.164 miles/263 metres wide and 0.098 miles/157.7 metres deep.

I wonder if the Earwa cubit is different to any of ours, as that's not that big. It's quite long, but not very wide or deep at all, and quite piddly compared to spacecraft in SF settings. It's slightly shorter than a Star Destroyer but much, much narrower. It'd be an impressive sight - twice the height of the Burj Khalifa, so if the Horns make up 50% of it they'd absolutely tower above the ground - but it does seem to slightly go against the descriptions of the "cavernous" interior.

It sounds like a stubby centipede. In all the text, that I can recall, there was always a sense of working upward or down though. I'd imagine if the inner workings-- the halls and chambers were labyrinthine enough it could feel that way. Cavernous however, coming as a descriptor from a Nonman used to Mansions, yeah, I'd be visualizing large, large spaces sure. But all of those impressions come from Akka's dreams [or am I wrong] so a 'Man'ly interpretation might fit with it. 

I would've put it as much bigger, myself. It's difficult to imagine 20 years in it's internal scouring if those dimensions are accurate.

edited for grammar, diction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Werthead said:

According to the glossary, the Ark is three thousand cubits in length, five hundred in width, and three hundred in depth.

The largest ancient measurement is the Egyptian long cubit, which at the upper end works out at 529 mm (20.8 in). So on that basis the Ark is 1 mile/1586 metres long (well, 0.98611 miles), 0.164 miles/263 metres wide and 0.098 miles/157.7 metres deep.

God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high).

Quote

but it does seem to slightly go against the descriptions of the "cavernous" interior

Yeah that’s what I always thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Your point is moot though, because your conflating FTL and Quantum effects with relativistic phenomena. If the Ark was actually travelling at C or FTL even, it wouldn't really get anywhere due increased mass. It appears to travel at FTL because it's circumventing actual space by travelling through it, via worm hole, hyperdrive, whatever. I like that you're trying to incorporate all this stuff, but it doesn't work the way you propose. I mean, it almost sounds like you're trying to bust out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle on me, which doesn't apply on a macroscopic scale. At all.

 

You're correct, in a sense. But assuming that in Bakkerworld steel is steel, granite is granite, dirt is dirt... as an application of force, the specifics of the crater depict the energy invested, equatable with a real world asteroid impact of equal size. To suggest otherwise is grasping at straws, I don't even know what to say further than this.

 

Feyman is one of the great minds of the last century, and what he says is not incorrect. How you think the words of a theoretical physicist speaking directly about quantum theory relates to [edit: relativistic] physics however, specifically in this case, is beyond me. And honestly, I'm not sure I want to know how your mind is mixing all this up hahaha

 

 

I'm not conflating them at all. However rather than get into an argument with a layman about the likely effects of a spaceship that doesn't exist crashing into a planet that doesn't exist. I'll do something else. :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I wouldn't get too worked up on that stuff, as there's some critical chunks of data you're missing (which TGO goes into in more detail).

 

On a related note, what do people reckon on the size of the Ark?

According to the glossary, the Ark is three thousand cubits in length, five hundred in width, and three hundred in depth.

The largest ancient measurement is the Egyptian long cubit, which at the upper end works out at 529 mm (20.8 in). So on that basis the Ark is 1 mile/1586 metres long (well, 0.98611 miles), 0.164 miles/263 metres wide and 0.098 miles/157.7 metres deep.

I wonder if the Earwa cubit is different to any of ours, as that's not that big. It's quite long, but not very wide or deep at all, and quite piddly compared to spacecraft in SF settings. It's slightly shorter than a Star Destroyer but much, much narrower. It'd be an impressive sight - twice the height of the Burj Khalifa, so if the Horns make up 50% of it they'd absolutely tower above the ground - but it does seem to slightly go against the descriptions of the "cavernous" interior.

From the books somewhere

"Every cubit is measured by the length of the Aspect-Emperor's arm"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, themerchant said:

I'm not conflating them at all. However rather than get into an argument with a layman about the likely effects of a spaceship that doesn't exist crashing into a planet that doesn't exist. I'll do something else. :)

[chuckles] You do that. :)


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

 

On a related note, what do people reckon on the size of the Ark?

Here's a 300 foot drop on camera if a cubit was a foot. It is probably a bit over 2 feet/2.5 if judged on arm length.

So might be a bit larger than the Egyptian cubit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hello World said:

God spells out to Noah the dimensions of the ark: 300 cubits by 50 by 30. Using the longer "Egyptian royal cubit" of 529mm, this works out at 158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high (520 feet 8 inches long by 86 feet 9.3 inches wide by 52 feet 0.8 inches high).

Yeah that’s what I always thought.

So Bakker made the Inchoroi ship to the dimensions of Noah's Ark but an order of magnitude larger? Interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd be sweet if the ship had a death blaster at the front, kinda like starblazers, and they fired it as they went down to slow the descent - this helped inchies survive (without using escape pods with parachutes, which is less metal) made a hole, the ship went in the hole and that's why it's buried. Starblazers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

I wouldn't get too worked up on that stuff, as there's some critical chunks of data you're missing (which TGO goes into in more detail).

 

On a related note, what do people reckon on the size of the Ark?

According to the glossary, the Ark is three thousand cubits in length, five hundred in width, and three hundred in depth.

The largest ancient measurement is the Egyptian long cubit, which at the upper end works out at 529 mm (20.8 in). So on that basis the Ark is 1 mile/1586 metres long (well, 0.98611 miles), 0.164 miles/263 metres wide and 0.098 miles/157.7 metres deep.

I wonder if the Earwa cubit is different to any of ours, as that's not that big. It's quite long, but not very wide or deep at all, and quite piddly compared to spacecraft in SF settings. It's slightly shorter than a Star Destroyer but much, much narrower. It'd be an impressive sight - twice the height of the Burj Khalifa, so if the Horns make up 50% of it they'd absolutely tower above the ground - but it does seem to slightly go against the descriptions of the "cavernous" interior.

The size issue always bothered me, particularly given the descriptions in TTT. 

Wert, how would you rate TGO with the other books? Do you prefer the first trilogy or the Aspect Emperor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Inchoroi can alter the regularities in the Bakkerverse we refer to as "laws of physics" it would explain how they survived the  crash...possibly also how they realized their own damnation.

Quote

Finally, nigh on five centuries after the defeat at the Black Furnace Plain, the Inchoroi were driven back into the Ark. No longer did the Cûnuroi call it the Incû-Holoinas, the Ark-of-the-Skies. Now they called it Min-Uroikas, the Pit of Obscenities, Golgotterath in the tongues of men. The Cûnuroi set about a methodical eradication of the Ark, scouring it hall by hall. It took twenty years to explore and secure every last hold and every last corner of the vessel but finally it was done. The Inchoroi were pronounced eradicated, destroyed and defeated. Unable to actually destroy the vessel itself, Nil'giccas, King of Ishoriöl, ordered the Qûya to raise a glamour about it to hide it away from the rest of the world. The Cûnuroi were forbidden from speaking of the accursed place, or telling others where it lay.

So Nonmen couldn't destroy the interior of the Ark as well as the Vessel? It seems odd, but not impossible, that the kind of tech you need to make Weapon Races is itself impervious to sorcery? 

Or did just enough tech exist for Shae to make the No-God?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think the descent was controlled and the ark purposefully buried itself, hit hard enough to create ring mountains and deliberately scoured the approachesame as basic defensive escarpments.

Those dimensions have to be wrong though, or perhaps just the dimension of a horn

 

Why are the dimensions deliberately wrong ? It's a hat tip to how inadequate thr official size of Noah's ark would be to contain two of all animals.  If you scaled Noah's ark up to be of sufficient size for its stated purpose, and then increased that upscaled size by an order of magnitude, then you'd probably get the ark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...